41 comments:

courtney better get off his duff and support the Murtha-Pelosi position on the war or his "base" will not be very into his race....his mealy mouthed position calling for yet more discussions,hearings etc is a dodge to keep everyone happy...the fact is lieberman gave him money for his past race and either has or will give him money for this one as well...but..it will be a poison pill to take it.

The war is not an issue where any real headway can be made by pro- or anti-war forces. Most people have picked a side and dug themselves a nice little foxhole there: they aren't going to budge one bit, especially when the other side is constantly lobbing insults and threats at them.

This war is too wrapped up in the partisan chasm that opened up after 2000, and it's too wrapped up in Vietnam for most people to think rationally about it. We're too passionate. We care too much about our side, and we believe that the people on the other side are either idiots, lunatics, wussies, warmongers, blind or quite possibly French. The other side can't be right, not even a little bit.

So there's no use in "debating" it. Let's stipulate the rest of this conversation, shall we?

Moody is a great example of the body living on after the head has been cut off.

It was the Rowland Administration, not just Rowland himself that rewarded semi-legal and fully illegal activity.

To allow the executive branch to carry over a variety of mid-level administrators/appointees from Rowland to Rell is a travesty. I understand that proper protocol under state law exists in a situation such as Rowland's untimely demise, it is up to the lawmakers to change the laws, and force administrations out, not just CEO's.

Apply something like R.I.C.O. to political corruption. Everyone knows something.

A while back I posted the following, but the thread went off in another direction. I'll post it again, as I think it might be useful to move away from conservative/liberal to try and think through what is the justification/purpose of using (US) military intervention. If no one else agrees, well, so be it.

Away fron NH for a minute, I have a question that has been gnawing away at me for a while, but I haven't had a chance to sit down and satisfactorily formulate it. What is the primary issue that so enrages folks about the Iraq War? How we got into it? Why we got into it? How we get out of it? American presumptiousness in going in in the first place? The reason I ask, is I have been thinking about the almost absolute silence regarding the American intervention in, and continuing occupation of, Afghanistan. Is it because there is so much more active resistence in Iraq, and the violence more accessible to US and western media? Also, thinking back to the huge push (especially from the Left) for U.S. led intervention in Rawanda, during the Hutu/Tutsi massacres (a 'purely humanitarian' intervention), Saddam's Iraq wasn't a heck of a lot better. Does the presence of Oil make the intervention less 'honorable'? I suppose this is a longish (for me) post to try and figure out where, if anywhere, there is a consistent theoretical basis for U.S. intervention in foreign countries.

This is an interesting post, Independent1, and it actually is something new to talk about.

I think it must have to do with the way we got into Iraq, as opposed to how we got into Afghanistan. Afghanistan was right after 9/11, and just about everybody agreed that we needed to go in there. There was a definite connection between the Taliban and 9/11, and people understood that. With Iraq, the connection was a lot less clear.

It was also a pretty quick war with relatively few casualties. The casualty rate has stayed low, and the media basically stopped covering it after the administration turned towards Iraq in early 2002.

It may also have a lot to do with the way the war in Iraq was sold, and with the fact that it was George W. Bush doing the selling. The run up to Iraq came at a time far enough removed from 9/11 that partisan divides had begun to reemerge. 2002 was an election year, after all, albeit a weird one. It was also the first election year after the polarizing election of 2000.

As for a consistent basis for intervention... history shows that we really don't have one. Maybe we ought to.

Don’t forget, Democrats voted strongly in favor of granting the President authority to go to war. As I recall, they actually pushed for a vote in late 2002 so that they could have a pro-war vote prior to the November election. The majority of the public was on board too.

When harsh realities on the ground surfaced, opposition grew, and those who were in favor of the war changed their minds.

I have no doubt that, had we been greeted like heroes in Iraq, and an insurgency did not materialize, many of the current opponents would be bragging about their affirmative votes.

I thought the topic of Iraq was off limits but let's go back to John Kerry on issue. He like everybody else voted for the use of necessary force to disarm Hussein; then that led to a new UN resolution which got the inspectors back in iraq but Bush grew impatient with that process. No intelligence is perfec (just read this blogsite) and that is why the inspectors were their to do the job of vrifying its accuracy. Karl Rove, a Norseman decendant, didn't trust or like Blix, the Swede so he told Bush this is a bunch a crap let's go and do what Wolfy wanted to do when your old man was President. That's about how it went but in the balck and white world of pundits nobody wants to conside day by day decisions.

Going forward everybody should just pay attention to what's going on with the thought leadrers in the US Senate like with Graham of SC. They are trying to bring closure to a nasty situation and not just running for office like Weicker and Lieberman.

Initially, I did not see a link but kept an open mind. SO much so that I was convinced by Colin Powell's presentation to the UN (I am also a big fan of Mr. Powell). My turn, like I believe most D's who originally supported the war, came when some of the promises and details and proof offered by the Administration turned out to be false.

However, I still did not believe there was a strong 9/11 link. I also, at this time, wondered why we would go to Iraq and not North Korea or Iran or Syria, or any number of North African countries. But I was convinced at this point that the government couldnt lie this bad and no way would they fake intelligence and besides, Colin Powell said it in front of the world!

Now...

Although I didn't go so far as to call my fried potato sticks freedom fries, I was offended that France and Germany didn't think it was so clear that we had to go into - as the evidence, as presented, was so clear to me that Saddam was a huge threat.

Now we know what France knew (Iraq did not try to buy yellow cake) and what Germany knew (Curveball was a scam artist and had no credibility). This completely changes my view of the "evidence" and had I known that these two "facts" were untrue, I would never have thought Iraq was a good idea.

Is the world better off now that Saddam is gone? Yes. Are we safer as a country? I doubt it...leaning no.

Now couple all of that with the massive fraud and raping of the American Taxpayer from so many of the Administration's supporters and I start to get pissed. Think about what all those billions could do to improve our country and I get more pissed. Hear questions about mistakes made dismissed as UnAmerican and I get more pissed. See that during a time of war we are cutting taxes to the wealthiest people while they are profiting from the war and the poorest people are dying to fight this rich man's war and I am disgusted!

I could go on and on - but it boils down to this - when you're wrong, a big person admits it. When you've made a mistake, leaders act to fix it. "Stay the course" is not a policy, it is a sound byte.

Clinton brought in Halliburton so he could collapse the size of the Army. Cheney just happened to be head of it at the time. The Iraq war is not about lining anybody's pockets with money but it makes for good politics. Companies like Halliburton are bureacracies. Bush didn't lie but he sure as hell made some bad decisions. Both sides are lazy in trying to understand the runup to invading Iraq. welcome to soundbit city.

You want to know what upsets me about the Iraq Experiment? Here you go...

1). I knew from the get-go that Saddam was no threat to the United States. He was a bug that we could squash at any time. Saddam knew it, we knew it.

2). My great fear was that our mere presence there, (in occupation of a Arab country), would be intolerable to the Muslim world. I prayed that everyting might turn out Okay, and that we might be able to build a secular democracy in a part of the world that sorely needed a beacon of hope. But I feared otherwise. The knowledge that none of Iraq's neighbors wanted us to succeed in our experiment added to my dread.

3). My fears were realized right out of the box by Bush & Co. From first naming the operation "Freedom Crusade", to the disbanding of the Iraq Army, to the looting, and Abu Ghraib, things couldn't have played out worse. --Are we intentionally creating chaos, and a 50-75 year war against "radical" Muslims? (I heard Newt Gingrich on TV today saying that is what Americ is in for).

4). The lies and fear any hype that got America into this "nation-building" experiment. Did we really have to demonize the French, the UN, the Germans and the Canadians for not wanting to participate in an elective war? (The French flatly said that what we were doing would destabilize the Mid-East. I believe they were right.) The fact that Rove pushed for the IWR vote before the 2002 elections, when Daddy Bush had had the decency to wait until after.

5). My underlying knowledge about the chicken-hawks of PNAC, and that none of their family members would be dying at the altar of "Iraqi Freedom". Let them send their children over to die with our American soldiers, and I'd feel a lot better about the enterprise.

6). A belief that we have played into the hands of Osama, and Iran. Post 9/11 Osama had no "causus belle" (sp?). We have since given them a huge one. And all we seem headed for in Iraq is a civil war, followed by another Shiite state.

7). The knowledge that some people have gotten rich off of this tragedy, and will never be called out.

8). The belief that 9/11 was fully preventable. Condi said, "Who could have imagined?" Well, Condi, I read about a 747 being flown into the Capitol in a 1994 Tom Clancy novel.

9). A disgust for sanitized wars, in which we never see the horror of what is happening on the ground. We don't see dead Americans, nor dead Iraqis, and the government has asked us to make no sacrifices. Hell, we are putting this experiment on our credit cards.

10). A fear that Bush and Co. have killed America's standing in the world. The hope was that we would vote Bush out in 2004, and restore some credibility to our foreign relations. Instead, I think we have done permanent damage to ourselves, that will slowly unwind over the next 100 years.----------------------------------------Let me close with one thing. It took me years to understand why America didn't drive to Baghdad during the first Gulf War. How could we not have taken Saddam out?

Then I read a passage from Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft's book. I encourage you to read the entire passage, but it closes with this quote, "Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

I hope we get some benefit out of Operation Iraqi Liberation. However, I think history will prove it to be an extremely costly mistake.

I think the problem Bush is having with Iraq is some of the people were way too optimistic going in.

Meanwhile, the Left deems any day Baghdad is less safe than Bethesda as a failure

If in January 2003 people were told that over the next three years we would see an elected government in Iraq at the cost of less than 2500 American lives, most people would chalk this one up in the plus columm.

The cycles of history last decades, unlike the news cycle for the American media

I'm glad to see everyone proving me wrong by talking about Iraq in a pretty reasonable and open way. We don't do that enough.

I think DeanFan's post covers a lot of the frustration and outrage that people on the left think and feel about this war. Anonymous 7:37 illustrates the grand sweep of history that the right is trying to claim, and expresses a frustration that the other side doesn't seem to see it.

Some days I can't stand even thinking about the war and what it's done to my country. In February and March 2003, I stood with a sign out on Windsor Green with a few dozen others, trying to do something to stop it. I believed it was the wrong thing to do. I also believed that if we shouted loud enough, they would hear us in Washington. I was wrong. The war began anyway, and the protests faded away. I still have the sign in the garage. It reads "I love America, and I love peace." As time wore on and the war became more difficult than they thought it would be, I felt vindicated... but it was a terribly bitter feeling. No one wants to see his country fail.

Then, on days like today, when it seems like the sun is breaking through the clouds, I feel like perhaps some good will come of it, and that Iraq really will have a better future because of what we did.

I knew a Filipino man in college, and he once took me to a celebration of Filipino culture. You probably know how the Philppines became independent. We captured them from the Spanish in 1898, which was good. The Filipinos hated the Spanish, who were cruel tyrants. We then annexed the islands, which sparked an uprising against American forces, which we turned around and brutally suppressed. This began the Phillppine-American War, which would last fourteen years and claim the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers.

Yet there was little mention of this in the celebration I went to. Instead, at the end of a theatrical presentation of Filipino history, a huge American flag was raised and the people started proclaiming their gratitude and love of America for saving them from the Spanish. I was stunned.

Maybe--just maybe--in a hundred years this is all the Iraqis will remember, that Americans saved them from a horrible tyrant. Maybe not. Our legacy could instead be civil war and regional instability, or worse. George Bush bet an awful lot on a roll of history's dice.

Maybe we need to leave. Maybe it would be better if we stayed. I have no idea. We'll see which way history turns after today's election.

I appreciate everyone's comments and discussion of this issue. As a parent who's children may be interested in the military, it is an issue close to my heart. DeanFan makes some cogent points; and in retrospect, many are dead on. Looking down the road, how do we, as a country, up front, decide where/when to intervene? There are many places where we have intervened which were not a threat to the US, say, for example, Bosnia. Yet, based on the results, it appears to be "worth" the loss of life. Is a US life, even one of my children, worth more than the X thousands of lives that are saved in other countries? Sometimes we intervene because we can, and other times, because we should. Differentiating between them, aye, there's the rub!

Take your average Iraqi. Explain to him or her how we helped to create Saddam and the Baathists in the 1960's. (yep, we did. Understandably against a Cold War back-drop, but Saddam was pretty much our creation.)

Explain to them how we encouraged the Iraq-Iran War that killed millions in the 1980's.

Explain to them the intense bombing campaign of Gulf War I.

Explain to them how we failed to liberate them in 1991.

Explain to them a dozen years of economic sanctions.

Explain to them another round of bombing.

Explain to them the post Gulf War II looting.

Explain to them Abu Ghraib.

Explain to them that we aren't there to control their country for the next fifty years.

Explain to them a whole host of contradictions.

Then explain to them that America is there, in Iraq, for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

It can't be done. And that is the problem. Our actions carry with them no real credibility.

I could not agree more with DF84's point 5. You'll never see George P. Bush walking point. Want to see an end to the neo-con enterprise? Reinstitute the draft and make rich white kids join the infantry and marines.

DF84's point 2 brings up the grayness of our foreign policy. In brief, recall that Jimmy Carter was pursuing a rather isolationist policy with regard to the Middle East. The fall of the Shah and especially the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan put an end to that (but not before the people who are now the neo-cons had left the party).

The resulting policy of treating the Middle East as a strategic interest of the United States (the way Western Europe was during the Cold War) was orignally known as The Carter Doctrine.

The fear that DF84 is talking about has already happened. During the first Bush administration, the US built enormous military installations in Saudi Arabia. These installations - in the Holy Land of Sunni Islam - have been specifically cited by Osama bin Laden as a reason for attacking the US.

The reason for these installations was that Plan A for protecting our staunch allies the Saudi's (Wahhabi Sunni Muslims), from their theocratic enemies in Iran (Shia Muslims) - that is, Saddam Hussein "the sword of Islam", I believe he was called - went down the tubes when he went off the Res.

Lately we have established bases in the emirates around the Gulf, and according to some (who are actually experts on this stuff), we are in the process of decamping from Western Europe to the middle east. Containment, if you are more of a Snowcroft (and Brzinski?) kind of fellow, of Iran is the primary focus. If you're a neocon, well, you talk about invading Tehran.

Neocons have publicly referred to the competition with the Islamic world as the Fourth World War (the Cold War being WWIII).

This is a war driven largely by ideology. Not American ideology, neo-con ideology. It is an almost cultish belief system, and they have carefully marketed it to us as something very different from what it is.

If the American people had actually chosen this, that would be different. But we didn't, and I don't believe the overwhelming majority of people would.

The "Blame America First" crowd will never accept that we can right old wrongs.

Which why they cannot be trusted with power. Millions of Iraqis cast ballots, a democracy is getting started in the barren soils of the Middle East, and it is progress they avert their eyes to like an ACLU lawyer turns his eyes away from a creche

Perhaps Dr. Dean should rpopose turning America over to the native Americans to make up for the oppression of past European Americans

Once upon a time a small group of foreign policy idelogues, mostly nameless, of the same ethnic group, devised a strategy for American survival which would require it to confront a single ideological enemy for decades until events would turn in America's favor.

They had the ear of a President ridiculed by east coast academics for his boorish rural ways and his lack of sophitication.

In fact, a third party candidate challenged the President and his policies, finding the other major party too cooperative.They claimed the foreign threat was overblown and their actions simply a means to secure their own legitimate national interests, even if massive oppression occurred. The tension in the world was all America's fault.

Well, Chris MC, I suppose you would have voted for Henry Wallace in 1948

I’m sure that part of the reason the discussion has been much more reasoned on this thread is because I’ve been away. Now that I’m back, perhaps the discussion can go downhill again.

Ctkevin: I am glad you have chosen a moniker. I hope you consistently use it the way ctkeith does, not only here, but on Dailykos, My left Nutmeg, Blog for America and probably a bunch of other places.

With regards to the war, I will start off by acknowledging my pacifist and globalist tendencies. As a person with pacifist leanings, I believe that we should only go to war as a last resort. I had mixed feelings about us going into Afghanistan. I had doubts that it was truly a last resort, but I didn’t see other viable options. I do not believe that our entry into Iraq met the last resort criteria.

As a globalist, I am very concerned about how we maintain America’s image abroad. American should be viewed as the moral superpower, as the good guy that everyone looks up to. When there is a broad based consensus that we are facing a last resort, we should act decisively and in a manner above reproach. With Afghanistan there was a broad based consensus and our actions appeared to be above reproach. With Iraq, there was not broad based consensus and our actions do not appear to be above reproach to many people.

Now that we are in there, we need to ask how can best regain or moral leadership. This includes talking about establishing a strategy whereby we transition from being viewed as an oppressive occupying force to being viewed as the liberators that which were hoping we would be viewed as when we entered Iraq.

I'm not reading this blogsite for anything more than thoughts, ideas and information so who says what is irrelevant as long as what is said provides a perspective or two. So special thanks to Genghis who runs the site for setting the ground rules as open as he has.

Afghanistan was a military operation in support of a law enforcemant effort to bring the alQaeda people who killed over 3000 on 9/11/2001 to justice and to stop them from doing it again. The military has been aiding law enforcement for decades.

Iraq is another situation and it has to be about how to bring about success now that we are there. Col. Murtha beleives success has been achieved and he has a plan to pull back and not cut and run. Colonels put plans on the table for discussion rather than call those who disagree with them assholes.

I am absolutely appalled at Mr. Reality, who said, "Bad news! Looks like the elections in Iraq have gone pretty well today."

How anyone can make a comment like that is beyond me. Regardless if you support the war or not, or are a Democrat, Republican or other, that is taking a shot at humanity and is just plain wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a vile comment.

After having my blood pressure go through the roof with Mr. Reality's first posting I took the time to read the rest.

My response to all of you is simple. On 9/11/2001 over 3000 Americans died basically all at once. There were no soldiers, no battlefields just 3 buildings, a field and 4 planes. They were just ordinary Americans like you and me, going about there daily routine. Perhaps each and every one of you should think back to where you were and how you felt at the moment you heard or saw what had happened. I reflect on this on a regular basis. Words cannot describe the pain I felt not just for the victims and their families but for America. That is a feeling I NEVER want to have again

I don't agree with most things that the President has to say, and like it or not, he is the President, but it has been 4 plus years since that day and their has not been a single terrorist attack on American soil. While we have seen no attacks people in Spain, England, France and beyond have been attacked and killed by people with the same beliefs as Bin Laden.

Ask yourself for one minute why that is. Throw away all your political beliefs, the rhetoric from both the political parties and the news media and ask yourself why. Maybe, just maybe, it is because our brave soldiers have taken the fight to them and hit these terrorists in their belly. See, if they are busy fighting our soldiers, how can they attack our homeland. The answer is simple...they cannot. Beyond that, these terrorists know that should they attack us on American soil, as long as this President is in the Oval Office he will hunt them down and remove them from the planet. No empty threats, but concrete promises as we have seen.

I look forward to most of you bashing me and my comments but if you seriously think about it, it might make some sense.

Offended American: I want to thank you for well thought out and presented views. I would ask you to stop and think for a moment about my views as well.

If I believed there was a finite number of terrorists and that American actions abroad didn't have the ability to incite new people to become terrorists, I would accept the view that we are better off with the battle being in Iraq.

However, I do believe that American actions are inciting new terrorists and we are essentially fighting a hydra. Each head that we cut off spawns a new one. How many times have we captured Al Qaeda's #3?

The argument that our strong resolve has protected us against terrorist attacks while other countries like England have seen new terrorist attacks also somehow doesn't ring true. I thought that England was also a member of the coalition of the willing.

Spain and England are part of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. And I seem to recall France is with us in Afghanistan. The 911 Commission said it's not a case of if but when we will see an attack on our soil. I don't buy the strategy fo setting up American targets in the Mideast. And most of the insurgency in Iraq is local rahter than alQaeda. And Congress knows a hell of a lot more than we do.

I normally don't respond to these posts, but I have to say how amusing it is to have anonymous right wing reactionaries accuse me of being a Henry Wallace Democrat (implying I am not what I am, which in the context of the reference would be a Truman Democrat), just a thread after the proudly neo-Wallacites excoriated me (again) for critcizing one of them.

Anonymous 7:18, if that is what you get from my posts it is your problem. I've said nothing of the sort.

The neo-cons are not the protectors of Western Civilization. They are elitist empire-builders, masterfully using the trappings of patriotism to suppress dissent and mislead the electorate.

Offended American, you are entitled to your opinion, although I think you are missing some important facts, some of which I posted earlier.

Thing is, you don't seem to think that the other offended Americans, the ones whose point of view differs from yours, are your peers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your screen name seems intended to convey exactly that.

The attempts, regardless of political persuasion, to reduce this to the kind of black and white caricature that President Bush attempts when he says ridiculous things like "you're either with us or with the terrorists", deserve to be criticized, argued with, satarized, and so on.

I live in a town that lost 5 of its residents on 9/11, and I lost a very good friend. My brother's office was one block from the WTC, and I lived and worked in NYC for over 10 years. I will never forget how I felt on 9/11, where I was, and the fear.

Having said that, the war in Iraq is not about 9/11, the facts prove it. Osama Bin Laden is the enemy we sought in response to that awful terrorist attack, and he's still at large.

Now we've lost over 2,000 Americans, I feel no safer, particularly when travelling abroad, and we've spent billions of dollars (while Americans lact healthcare, jobs are disappearing, our schools are failing) on a war that has no end in site, no plan for withdrawal and transfer of power to the Iraqis and no legitimate reason for being waged in the first place.

Truly, "Anonymous", you know nothing about what you are writing. In point of fact, the intellectual heritage of neo-conservatism is Trotskyite Communism. What you are rooting for, to paraphrase a Seinfeld joke, is the trappings.

The WASP establishment you refer to actually served in the military. Got themselves shot at and shot down. Prescott Bush's son went to war. His grandson used his father's influence to avoid service, just like the hippie left you are cynically trying to lump me together with.

You're correct on only one point: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the threat. But Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The march to Baghdad was advocated by Wolfowitz in the first Bush Administration, and one need only read the published document from that time and compare it to the national security document of the current Administration to recognize that.

But you won't be bothered with that, will you. Don't confuse you with facts and history. That blue sky is the account of someone with his head in the clouds.